Women Can Be Priests
Reply to post

Peter Kreeft

Page: << < ..3132333435 > Showing page 32 of 35 - Powered by APG vNext Trial
Author
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/12 06:03:55 (permalink)
  Thank you  to Sophia    from Beatrice.  A shocking ''''theology''''''     that is not of Catholicism  at all.  Yet Vatican uses it for women exclusion reasons.  Very unjust.  It will take time to look over this. 
Therese
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 1816
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2006/01/26 12:56:16
  • Location: Canada
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/15 02:53:22 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Guest

Hello Theresa 
   I am reading books about the Gospel of Judas and their connection to church "fathers', to the Gospels and other Gnostic texts, plus I also borrowed The Expected One, a novel about Mary Magdalene and one older book called Alone Among Her Sex, The Cult of Virgin Mary.  Have you looked at any of these?  I have  read Marvin Meyer and Walis Barnstone's Gnostic Bible and it is wonderful with great commentaries by these experts of ancient spiritual pre-Christian and Christian texts. 
Connie

 
Hi Connie,

I am not familiar with any of these.  I am going to put them on my reading list.  One book that your did recommend a while ago recently arrived (I found a copy through an on line bookstore.)  It is the book you had recommended about women in the literature of the Middle Ages.  I am looking forward to diving in.

Therese
Therese
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 1816
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2006/01/26 12:56:16
  • Location: Canada
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/15 03:03:02 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Guest

I think the previous posts are getting off the topic of the “Kreeft” discussion.
Kreeft, the Vatican, and company are advancing flawed arguments in an attempt to prevent ordination of women and to maintain subjugation of women. In my opinion this thread should remain focused on the misinterpretation of the Bridegroom analogy (comparing a man’s self giving in marriage with the Eucharist) as well as their fixation on the letters of Paul and Timothy, in which Kreeft et. al. deny the historical influence of belief in the inferiority of women on such passages.



Getting back on point.

The issue of adult faith literacy in the Church crosses my mind alot.  Until I made the effort to do some reading, I basically accepted all that 'seemed to be' about the way the Church is structured, the meaning of the mass, etc.

The mass -- without Peter Kreeft/von Balthasar's spin on it -- is something quite beautiful.  We come together as the mystical Body of Christ.  Each one of us is part of the Body of Christ.  When we receive the Body of Christ, we receive the nourishment of who we are.  I like the fact that as a prayer, the mass has the capacity to draw people together.  Whatever differences might be, coming together at mass is a reminder that we park our differences at the door and come to be reminded of our unity as members in one Body.

My own journey towards adult  understanding did not begin until I encountered what for me was a jarring personal conversion.  Sometime after the 'event', my priest at the time suggested that I had come under the influence of the devil---  Good grief.  For as much as I liked him, I have to say that I personally found it astounding that he just couldn't seem to get it.  I felt frustrated, angry, sad and very much alone. And kind of ripped apart inside.  I didn't know how to make sense anymore of what had been like the centre pole in my tent.

So the reading, reading, reading began in an effort  to help me understand what I was seeing wrong.  In other words, my base line was that Rome must be right and that I must be one of:
  • totally misunderstanding what newly seemed to be
  • missing out some piece, some segment and that if I found it, my sense of  peacefulness would be restored to me.


My sadness about my new way of seeing things was a tremendous driving force from inside of me.   When I think that other adult Catholics should pick up books and start reading, I know this is not realistic.  Reading to achieve understanding takes a lot of work.  Part of my motivation was finding a way to soothe emotional and spiritual pain... a very strong force. In a way, I was desperately seeking that which could convince me that in my new way of seeing things, there was something wrong.  That this just can't possibly be.

But the more I read, the more I learned and the more I began to say, 'with my eyes fixed on Christ.'

Lots of people simply accept things at face value and believe that it is good because it is of the Church and the Church is of Christ therefore it must be good. J. Michaels who participated in discussion this thread a little while ago actually struck me as someone who was a more 'literate' Catholic -- if that is the phrase to use.  But even he did not seem to be aware of some of what is at the heart of Peter Kreeft/von Balthasar's theology.

I remember giving my dad some articles to read about von Balthasar's theories on the Christic orgasm on the cross.  My dad's words upon reading:  That's repulsive.

Part of the work for women priests then has to include helping to raise adult literacy levels in the Church....helping people approach faith and faith community with an adult (as opposed to Grade 4 catechism cheerios) understanding of it . Does this make sense?  J. Michaels, I'll hazard a guess was genuinely sincere in wanting to help us 'understand.'   I wonder what he would say if he sat down and really started reading some of what's written.  J. Michaels might very well see things in a different light and help him to understand what's at issue. 

My instinct says that if he were presented with the a critical reflection of kreeft/von B,  J Michaels might share my dad's perspective about their theology of the mass: ie,   That's repulsive.

How can we help wake up people so that they, too can see?

I like the imagery someone shared just a while ago.  We are tending the garden, planting the seeds, helping the kingdom to grow.  Some of those seeds are related to adult education and learning how to think critically about the Church.

It is an awkward combination:  most people who come to Church some for connections, support, nourishment of their spirituality.  They don't want to face --in Church -- what seems like yet another social justice issue that's bumpy and causes lots of conflict and arguments.  The people who raise questions -- ie, us --are  perceived as trying to ruffle up the nest.  We are blamed for making the place less comfortable to be.

Both Kreeft and von Balthasar espouse pretty complicated sets of theology. Who wants to talk about Christic orgasms?  It's a banquet they come for...and some are dragged to come, if they come, at best.
 
One has to be committed to the learning to learn how to critique what we see.

with my eyes fixed on Christ,
Therese
post edited by Therese - 2007/06/16 04:35:48
Therese
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 1816
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2006/01/26 12:56:16
  • Location: Canada
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/15 04:20:29 (permalink)
I think the previous posts are getting off the topic of the “Kreeft” discussion.
Kreeft, the Vatican, and company are advancing flawed arguments in an attempt to prevent ordination of women and to maintain subjugation of women. In my opinion this thread should remain focused on the misinterpretation of the Bridegroom analogy (comparing a man’s self giving in marriage with the Eucharist) as well as their fixation on the letters of Paul and Timothy, in which Kreeft et. al. deny the historical influence of belief in the inferiority of women on such passages.

 
ps  I appreciate your ability to stay sharply focused on our cause! It helps me to stay in focus, too.
 
Therese
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/16 05:13:21 (permalink)
In reviewing these posts it seems that the traditional Catholic Church espouses the concepts of “male domination” and “female submission.” It is no wonder that the Vatican refuses to call the sin of sexism a sin.
Sophie
Moderator
  • Total Posts : 14275
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/01/18 01:57:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/16 07:39:34 (permalink)
Dear friends,

The world as seen from Rome.... this from zenit.org, a news engine of the Vatican.
Enjoy!

with love and blessings,
~Sophie~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Church Raised Status of Women, Says Prelate
Bishop Wenski Speaks Against Chauvinism


ORLANDO, Florida, JUNE 15, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Christianity, far from being anti-woman, raised the dignity of women wherever it took root, said Bishop Thomas Wenski.

Bishop Wenksi of Orlando wrote in June in his monthly Bishop's Column that Christianity has been a positive force for the promotion of female dignity rather than harboring an anti-woman bias, as "proponents of a 'feminist narrative,' both within and outside of the Church, allege."

"For example," Bishop Wenski explained, "some fringe groups within the Church have proposed the idea of women’s ordination, alleging that the fact that only men are ordained priests is the result of such a bias."

"That the Church only ordains men to the priesthood is not a comment on the status or state of women but a statement on the nature of the priesthood as instituted by Jesus Christ," he said.

"The ordained priest acts 'in persona Christ'; that is, he acts in the place of Christ who is the bridegroom of the Church, his bride," said the 56-year-old prelate. "To say that a woman cannot be a bridegroom in no way detracts from her essential dignity as a human being or her equality with men."

Additionally, "pagan societies were hardly 'pro-women,'" Bishop Wenski continued, "and this was true of civilizations of high culture like that of the Greeks and Romans as well as the less 'cultured' barbarians."

"Where the Gospel took root, however, the status of women improved," the bishop added. "That the Middle Ages were considered the 'Age of Chivalry' shows how deeply the Gospel penetrated societies that had once treated women as chattel."

Equal but different

Bishop Wenski continued: "A Catholic anthropology can affirm the equality and dignity of both men and women without denying the God-made differences between the sexes.

"Of course, this is not to say that women were always treated with dignity or received their due within the Church. While the Church is not of the world, too much of the world is found in the Church. Believers have, in this as well as other areas, have often failed to live in a way congruent to our beliefs."

"During his recent visit to Brazil, Benedict XVI had occasioned to condemn the 'chauvinistic' mentality that ignores the 'newness' of Christianity in which the equal dignity and responsibility of women relative to men is acknowledged and affirmed," added the bishop.

"We are always called to conversion," said Bishop Wenski, and Benedict XVI's "criticism of a 'chauvinistic mentality' must be seen within that call to conversion from which no Christian can exempt himself -- or herself."

Bishop Wenski added, "Both women as well as men are called through baptism to witness to the Lord. And lest we forget, salvation came to the human race through the free yes of a woman, Mary."
Sophie
Moderator
  • Total Posts : 14275
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/01/18 01:57:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/16 07:54:08 (permalink)
 




Dear friends,

If you are interested in exploring more conversation about some aspects of Peter Kreeft's arguments, see here: Bride and Bridegroom in Ephesians?  

with love and blessings,
~Sophie~
Sophie
Moderator
  • Total Posts : 14275
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/01/18 01:57:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/16 14:05:36 (permalink)
From Dr. Marie Therese Van Lunen Chenu:

A survey in the January 2007 issue of Le Monde des Religions found that 79% of French Catholics say they are in favour of the admission of women to the priesthood. Such an endorsement in principle is quite new, so women are still looked at askance or accusingly if ever they transgress, mention or support transgression (of Canon Law). Clergy and laity alike tend to contrast women who do transgress with those other women whose spirituality and abilities are increasingly given the benefit of official “recognition” - those with a mission, “happy” in their work and with their place in the Church, those who do not seek the power of ordination! We should, I suppose, applaud the positive side of this development. The numbers of the latter are growing, as are their responsibilities - while remaining limited, of course. And the hierarchy puts them forward as the only valid female role model.

We must uncompromisingly reject and oppose the way in which this sets women against each other. This does not happen when men assert their different vocations and gifts in the service of the Gospel. For the survival of the Church, we women must also lay claim to all the responsibilities conferred upon us by Baptism and to all the gifts bestowed upon us by grace (Romans 12: 4-8). However inconvenient it may be, we must naively ask why the hierarchy should suspect women of seeking appreciative recognition and power since it knows nothing of such feelings and practices.

Clearly, Rome is now attempting a different sort of justification for refusing to ordain women. The theological and ecclesiological arguments put forward since 1996 having failed to convince, so now Rome would rather brandish the fear of confusion between the sexes, surfing a wave of long-standing prejudices that have plenty of life in them yet. The argument then invoked is that of symbolism and appropriateness. We too must focus on celebrating the difference between the sexes as being “structurally defining”, but continue to ask what connection there can be between that and the institutional need to identify priesthood with maleness.

We need ever more bluntly ask the fundamental questions, exposing the real reasons that are still insufficiently explored because they are concealed beneath a line of argument based on principle and tradition. It is less a matter of femaleness than of a model of patriarchal maleness still operative in the Church. Why exactly is this male institution incapable of sharing with women the mission of fulfilling its essential responsibilities for the life of the Church? What really makes men so uncomfortable with accepting to share those responsibilities? Would they feel deprived? What are they afraid of?

We need to be more explicit in our criticism. Even if men are not aware of it, the mere fact that women are excluded implies the mere fact of male privilege, now called “gender-determined” power, however generous a personal vocation may be. Even if it were “service-determined” power, the fact that one group has an exclusive right to it means that the others are excluded. Why? Because they are capable of giving birth? Because they are holier? It directly affects, perhaps even undermines, the nature of priesthood, the witness of priests, the Gospel message’s power to convince and the credibility of the Church. What witness can an institution bear when it has shown itself incapable of living out Gospel communion with its women members within the Church?

Women and men together, we must reclaim the language of our baptismal responsibilities. We must shift it from the woman-as-object which has saturated our religious language and the man-as-subject which needs to be re-assessed (an indispensable step in the process towards parity), for the sake of ecclesial communion and the greater good of the entire human community.

Marie-Thérèse Van Lunen Chenu speaking in Paris, March 2006.  Dr. Van Lunen Chenu has doctorates in Law and in Theology, and is one of the founders of Femmes et Hommes en Église (1970).
Sophie
Moderator
  • Total Posts : 14275
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/01/18 01:57:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/22 06:13:45 (permalink)
 

Dear friends,

I happened upon the a broadcast of a lecture by Peter Kreeft: Will There be Sex in Heaven? presented in February 2007 at the 20/20 Collegiate Conference at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina. A 'heavenly reading of the earthly riddle of sex,'  Kreeft’s lecture goes further in explaining his perspectives about sex and sexual differentiation.  Intrinsically masculine?  intrinsically feminine? a masculine soul? a feminine soul?  the sex of God? intercourse in heaven?  The lecture helped me understand a bit more clearly his perspectives about men and women, the nuptial imagery in Ephesians, and why, in the context of the priesthood, his perspectives make no sense. If you are interested in a listen, click here:
  • Download Dr. Peter Kreeft's lecture here.
  • Listen to Dr. Peter Kreeft's lecture now.

If you have any questions, please let me know.
 
with love and blessings,
~Sophie~
Sophie
Moderator
  • Total Posts : 14275
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/01/18 01:57:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/22 06:19:21 (permalink)
 
 


Dr. Peter Kreeft
 
from wikipedia.org: Peter Kreeft is aCatholic apologist, professor of philosophy at Boston College and The King's College, and author of over 45 books including Fundamentals of the Faith, Everything you Ever Wanted to Know about Heaven, and Back to Virtue. His ideas draw heavily from religious and philosophical tradition, especially Thomas Aquinas, Socrates, G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis. Kreeft is especially known for his writings on Socratic logic, the sea, angels, Pascal, and Heaven, as well as his work on the Problem of Evil, for which he was interviewed by Lee Strobel in his bestseller, The Case for Faith. ... His family name is pronounced 'krayft', not 'kreeeft' or 'krehft'.
Sophie
Moderator
  • Total Posts : 14275
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/01/18 01:57:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/22 07:19:04 (permalink)
 





Other threads of dialogue related to the themes of Peter Kreeft and Hans Urs von Balthasar:
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/22 12:14:00 (permalink)
    How Embarrasing for Roman Catholic Church if Kreeft is Considered Apologist for It!
 
    Kreeft 's philosophical pagan based writings do not reflect the Roman Catholic Catechism not do they reflect the Roman Catholic Canon Law.  They do reflect pagan notions shuch as God as man when this is NOT supported by Roman Catholic Canons or Catechism or Old or New Testament as God is both Female and Male and Ineffable Spirit.  Kreeft is a veritable  misogynist who promotes hatred and exclusion of women and his writings are not in line with Roman Catholicism.
    See the posts in this thread.  Kreeft is an embarrasment to the church and does not demontrate Roman Catholic religious knowledge at all but ancient pagan god and philosophy knowledge, like Sophocles.
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/22 16:50:35 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Sophie

 

Dear friends,

I happened upon the a broadcast of a lecture by Peter Kreeft: Will There be Sex in Heaven? presented in February 2007 at the 20/20 Collegiate Conference at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina. A 'heavenly reading of the earthly riddle of sex,'  Kreeft’s lecture goes further in explaining his perspectives about sex and sexual differentiation.  Intrinsically masculine?  intrinsically feminine? a masculine soul? a feminine soul?  the sex of God? intercourse in heaven?  The lecture helped me understand a bit more clearly his perspectives about men and women, the nuptial imagery in Ephesians, and why, in the context of the priesthood, his perspectives make no sense. If you are interested in a listen, click here:
  • Download Dr. Peter Kreeft's lecture here.
  • Listen to Dr. Peter Kreeft's lecture now.


If you have any questions, please let me know.
 
with love and blessings,
~Sophie~


 
 
Sophie,
 
I cannot access this Kreeft link. Can you provide some excerpts or answers?
 
I know Kreeft believes in what he calls “masculine and feminine souls.”
 
Considering Jesus said there is no marriage in heaven, is there sex in heaven (according to Kreeft)?
 
What is the sex of God (according to Kreeft)?
 
When I read some of von Balthasar's theology, it seems he is comparing being united with God to having an orgasm. It this the new Catholic concept of heaven, one eternal orgasm?
 
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/22 18:03:33 (permalink)
    Kreeft claims God is masculine.
 
 
    So says Kreeft-   NOT according to Roman Catholic Catechism, or Roman Catholic Canons or Old or New Testament.
 
    Kreeft's God is a male so if he says heaven is sex then Kreeft plans on having eternal sex with a male God.
 
    Hmmmmm a homosexual orgasm fantasy for Kreeft, God as male, heaven as orgasm with male God.
 
    Yikes! 
 
 
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/22 18:22:42 (permalink)
  This new theology idea that Eucharist is self-giving sacrafice orgasm of male priest is sicko! 
 
  Van Balthasar you are a nutcase and despicable.  So is Kreeft with similar ideas of male God and orgasm eucharist.
 
  The ultimate nonsense is that in reality it is women who image the ultimate self-sacrafice of nuptial wedding sex
 
 
 
   because women have Fruitful, Faithful--Balthasar's terms--self-sacrafice of real potential of death, pain and suffering in
 
childbirth. 
 
         Men in nuptial sex, and this is the crazy new theological analogy Van Balthasar and Kreeft try to use to exclude
 
women from priesthood- men have a pleasurable, very brief sex act part so in this perverse new analogy  logic and reality
 
specify according to this ridiculous new "sex is eucharist" new "theology" Van Balthasar has thought up , eucharist is  not
 
bread, wine, body, blood of Jesus but wedding nuptial sex of priest "self-giving sacrafice orgasm"!  Crazy and wrong!
 
 
           Women Alone should be The Only Priest Candidates because Women Give Ultimate Wedding Sex Sacrafice:
 
Childbirth.
 
This male sex orgasm of priest idea held by Van Balthasar and Kreeft is NOT from Jesus or God or Roman Catholic Canon
 
and Catechism. 
 
         If the Pope Benedict XVI still claims that Van Balthasar is his favourite theologian we have got to impeach
 
this pope.  This horrible new way to try to rationalize why women can not be priests in our church has got to be stopped.
 
Is this now taught in the seminaries and Catholic Universities to priest candidates.
 
 
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/23 21:03:31 (permalink)
  Yes some excerpts from this please. I just know about his strange unCatholic false ideas from the lecture quoted earlier. I can not download this newest one . 
    So far so bad, Kreeft's idea are wierd and not following Roman Catholic doctrine and also do NOT follow the scripture of God or Jesus. 
Sophie
Moderator
  • Total Posts : 14275
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/01/18 01:57:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/28 04:51:08 (permalink)
Sophie,

I cannot access this Kreeft link. Can you provide some excerpts or answers?

I know Kreeft believes in what he calls “masculine and feminine souls.”

Considering Jesus said there is no marriage in heaven, is there sex in heaven (according to Kreeft)?

What is the sex of God (according to Kreeft)?

When I read some of von Balthasar's theology, it seems he is comparing being united with God to having an orgasm. It this the new Catholic concept of heaven, one eternal orgasm?

 
 
Dear friend,
 
I want to acknowledge your post and let you know that I will be back in the next day or two with my reply.  I will also hunt around to see if I can find a transcript of the lecture to provide.
 
Your questions are excellent ones!
 
with love and blessings,
~Sophie~
Sophie
Moderator
  • Total Posts : 14275
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/01/18 01:57:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/06/28 04:52:44 (permalink)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Yes some excerpts from this please.

 
Will do!
 
~s~
Sophie
Moderator
  • Total Posts : 14275
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2007/01/18 01:57:27
  • Status: offline
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/08/17 03:31:48 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Sophie

Sophie,

I cannot access this Kreeft link. Can you provide some excerpts or answers?

I know Kreeft believes in what he calls “masculine and feminine souls.”

Considering Jesus said there is no marriage in heaven, is there sex in heaven (according to Kreeft)?

What is the sex of God (according to Kreeft)?

When I read some of von Balthasar's theology, it seems he is comparing being united with God to having an orgasm. It this the new Catholic concept of heaven, one eternal orgasm?



Dear friend,

I want to acknowledge your post and let you know that I will be back in the next day or two with my reply.  I will also hunt around to see if I can find a transcript of the lecture to provide.

Your questions are excellent ones!

with love and blessings,
~Sophie~


Dear friend,

I hope you are still with us!  Since your question asking for a copy of a transcript of Peter Kreeft's audio lecture Will There Be Sex in Heaven?, I have been hunting around and have managed to find a condensed version of it...on Peter Kreeft's website!

A copy of it follows here for you.

with love and blessings,
~Sophie~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is There Sex in Heaven?
by Peter Kreeft



We cannot know what X-in-Heaven is unless we know what X is. We cannot know what sex in Heaven is unless we know what sex is. We cannot know what in Heaven's name sex is unless we know what on earth sex is.

But don't we know? Haven't we been thinking about almost nothing else for years and years? What else dominates our fantasies, waking and sleeping, twenty-four nose-to-the-grindstone hours a day? What else fills our TV shows, novels, plays, gossip columns, self-help books, and psychologies but sex?

No, we do not think too much about sex; we think hardly at all about sex. Dreaming, fantasizing, feeling, experimenting—yes. But honest, look-it-in-the-face thinking?—hardly ever. There is no subject in the world about which there is more heat and less light.

Therefore I want to begin with four abstract philosophical principles about the nature of sex. They are absolutely necessary not only for sanity about sex in Heaven but also for sanity about sex on earth, a goal at least as distant as Heaven to our sexually suicidal society. The fact that sex is public does not mean it is mature and healthy. The fact that there are thousands of "how to do it" books on the subject does not mean that we know how; in fact, it means the opposite. It is when everybody's pipes are leaking that people buy books on plumbing.

My four philosophical principles will seem strange or even shocking to many people today. Yet they are far from radical, or even original; they are simply the primeval platitudes known to all premodern societies; the sane, sunny country of sexual common sense by the vote of "the democracy of the dead". Yet in another way they are "radical", in the etymological sense of the word: they are our sexual roots, and our uprooted society is rooting around looking for sexual substitute roots like a pig rooting for truffles. It has not found them. That fact should at least make us pause and look back at our "wise blood", our roots. Here are four of them.

First Principle: Sex Is Something You Are, Not Something You Do

Suppose you saw a book with the title "The Sexual Life of a Nun". You would probably assume it was a scurrilous, gossipy sort of story about tunnels connecting convents and monasteries, clandestine rendezvous behind the high altar, and masking a pregnancy as a tumor. But it is a perfectly proper title: all nuns have a sexual life. They are women, not men. When a nun prays or acts charitably, she prays or acts, not he. Her celibacy forbids intercourse, but it cannot forbid her to be a woman. In everything she does her essence plays a part, and her sex is as much a part of her essence as her age, her race, and her sense of humor.

The counterfeit phrase "having sex" (meaning "inter- course") was minted only recently. Of course a nun "has sex" she is female. Draftees often fill in the box on their induction forms labeled "sex" not with the word "male" but "occasionally" or "please!" The joke would have been unintelligible to previous generations. The significance of the linguistic change is that we have trivialized sex into a thing to do rather than a quality of our inner being. It has become a thing of surfaces and external feeling rather than of personality and internal feeling. Thus even masturbation is called "having sex", though it is exactly the opposite: a denial of real relationship with the other sex.

The words "masculinity" and "femininity", meaning something more than merely biological maleness and femaleness, have been reduced from archetypes to stereotypes. Traditional expectations that men be men and women be women are confused because we no longer know what to expect men and women to be. Yet, though confused, the expectations remain. Our hearts desire, even while our minds reject, the old "stereotypes". The reason is that the old stereotypes were closer to our innate sexual instincts than are the new stereotypes. We have sexist hearts even while we have unisex heads. Evidence for this claim? More people are attracted to the old stereotypes than to the new ones. Romeo still wants to marry Juliet.

The main fault in the old stereotypes was their too-tight connection between sexual being and social doing, their tying of sexual identity to social roles, especially for women: the feeling that it was somehow unfeminine to be a doctor, lawyer, or politician. But the antidote to this illness is not confusing sexual identities but locating them in our being rather than in our doing. Thus we can soften up social roles without softening up sexual identities. In fact, a man who is confident of his inner masculinity is much more likely to share in traditionally female activities like housework and baby care than one who ties his sexuality to his social roles.

If our first principle is accepted, if sexuality is part of our inner essence, then it follows that there is sexuality in Heaven, whether or not we "have sex" and whether or not we have sexually distinct social roles in Heaven.

Second Principle: The Alternative to Chauvinism Is Not Egalitarianism

The two most popular philosophies of sexuality today seem totally opposed to each other; yet at a most basic level they are in agreement and are equally mistaken. The two philosophies are the old chauvinism and the new egalitarianism; and they seem totally opposed. For chauvinism (a) sees one sex as superior to the other, "second", sex. This is usually the male, but there are increasingly many strident female chauvinist voices in the current cacophony. This presupposes (b) that the sexes are intrinsically different, different by nature not social convention.

Egalitarianism tries to disagree with (a) totally; it thinks that to do so it has to disagree with (b) as well. But this means that it agrees with chauvinism on (c), the unstated but assumed premise that all dfferences must be dfferences in value, or, correlatively, that the only way for two things to be equal in value is for them to be equal in nature. Both philosophies see sameness or superiority as the only options. It is from this assumption (that differences are differences in value) that the chauvinist argues that the sexes are different in nature, therefore they are different in value. And it is from the same assumption that the egalitarian argues that the sexes are not different in value, therefore they are not different in nature.

Chauvinism:
(c)
and (b)
therefore (a)

Egalitarianism:
 
(c)
and not (a)
therefore not (b)

Once this premise is smoked out, it is easy to see how foolish both arguments are. Of course not all differences are differences in value. Are dogs better than cats, or cats than dogs? Or are they different only by convention, not by nature? Chauvinist and egalitarian should both read the poets, songwriters, and mythmakers to find a third philosophy of sexuality that is both more sane and infinitely more interesting. It denies neither the obvious rational truth that the sexes are equal in value (as the chauvinist does) nor the equally obvious instinctive truth that they are innately different (as the egalitarian does). It revels in both, and in their difference: vive la difference!

If sexual differences are natural, they are preserved in Heaven, for "grace does not destroy nature but perfects it" If sexual differences are only humanly and socially conventional, Heaven will remove them as it will remove economics and penology and politics. (Not many of us have job security after death. That is one advantage of being a philosopher.) All these things came after and because of the Fall, but sexuality came as part of God's original package: "be fruitful and multiply". God may unmake what we make, but He does not unmake what He makes. God made sex, and God makes no mistakes.

Saint Paul's frequently quoted statement that "in Christ. there is neither male nor female" does not mean there is no sex in Heaven. For it refers not just to Heaven but also to earth: we are "in Christ" now. (In fact, if we are not "in Christ" now there is no hope of Heaven for us!) But we are male or female now. His point is that our sex does not determine our "in-Christness"; God is an equal opportunity employer. But He employs the men and women He created, not the neuters of our imagination.

Third Principle: Sex Is Spiritual

That does not mean "vaguely pious, ethereal, and idealistic". "Spiritual" means "a matter of the spirit", or soul, or psyche, not just the body. Sex is between the ears before it's between the legs. We have sexual souls.
For some strange reason people are shocked at the notion of sexual souls. They not only disagree; the idea seems utterly crude, superstitious, repugnant, and incredible to them. Why? We can answer this question only by first answering the opposite one: why is the idea reasonable, enlightened, and even necessary?

The idea is the only alternative to either materialism or dualism. If you are a materialist, there is simply no soul for sex to be a quality of If you are a dualist, if you split body and soul completely, if you see a person as a ghost in a machine, then one half of the person can be totally different from the other: the body can be sexual without the soul being sexual. The machine is sexed, the ghost is not. (This is almost the exact opposite of the truth: ghosts, having once been persons, have sexual identity from their personalities, their souls. Machines do not.)

No empirical psychologist can be a dualist; the evidence for psychosomatic unity is overwhelming. No pervasive feature of either body or soul is insulated from the other; every sound in the soul echoes in the body, and every sound in the body echoes in the soul. Let the rejection of dualism be Premise One of our argument.

Premise Two is the even more obvious fact that biological sexuality is innate, natural, and in fact pervasive to every cell in the body. It is not socially conditioned, or conventional, or environmental; it is hereditary.

The inevitable conclusion from these two premises is that sexuality is innate, natural, and pervasive to the whole person, soul as well as body. The only way to avoid the conclusion is to deny one of the two premises that logically necessitate it-to deny psychosomatic unity or to deny innate somatic sexuality.

In the light of this simple and overwhelming argument, why is the conclusion not only unfamiliar but shocking to so many people in our society? I can think of only two reasons. The first is a mere misunderstanding, the second a serious and substantial mistake.

The first reason would be a reaction against what is wrongly seen as monosexual soul-stereotyping. A wholly male soul, whatever maleness means, or a wholly female soul, sounds unreal and oversimplified. But that is not what sexual souls implies. Rather, in every soul there is—to use Jungian terms—anima and animus, femaleness and maleness; just as in the body, one predominates but the other is also present. If the dominant sex of soul is not the same as that of the body, we have a sexual misfit, a candidate for a sex change operation of body or of soul, earthly or Heavenly. Perhaps Heaven supplies such changes just as it supplies all other needed forms of healing. In any case, the resurrection body perfectly expresses its soul, and since souls are innately sexual, that body will perfectly express its soul's true sexual identity.

A second reason why the notion of sexual souls sounds strange to many people may be that they really hold a pantheistic rather than a theistic view of spirit as undifferentiated, or even infinite. They think of spirit as simply overwhelming, or leaving behind, all the distinctions known to the body and the senses. But this is not the Christian notion of spirit, nor of infinity. Infinity itself is not undifferentiated in God. To call God infinite is not to say He is everything in general and nothing in particular: that is confusing God with The Blob! God's infinity means that each of His positive and definite attributes, such as love, wisdom, power, justice, and fidelity, is unlimited.

Spirit is no less differentiated, articulated, structured, or formed than matter. The fact that our own spirit can suffer and rejoice far more, more delicately and exquisitely, and in a far greater variety of ways, than can the body-this fact should be evidence of spirit's complexity. So should the fact that psychology is nowhere near an exact science, as anatomy
Differences in general, and sexual differences in particular, increase rather than decrease as you move up the cosmic hierarchy. (Yes, there is a cosmic hierarchy, unless you can honestly believe that oysters have as much right to eat you as you have to eat them.) Angels are as superior to us in differentiation as we are to animals. God is infinitely differentiated, for He is the Author of all differences, all forms.

Each act of creation in Genesis is an act of differentiation—light from darkness, land from sea, animals from plants, and so on. Creating is forming, and forming is differentiating. Materialism believes differences in form are ultimately illusory appearance; the only root reality is matter.

Pantheism also believes differences in form are ultimately illusory; the only root reality is one universal Spirit. But theism believes form is real because God created it. And whatever positive reality is in the creation must have its model in the Creator. We shall ultimately have to predicate sexuality of God Himself, as we shall see next.

Fourth Principle: Sex Is Cosmic

Have you ever wondered why almost all languages except English attribute sexuality to things? Trees, rocks, ships, stars, horns, kettles, circles, accidents, trips, ideas, feelings-these, and not just men and women, are masculine or feminine. Did you always assume unthinkingly that this was of course a mere projection and personification, a reading of our sexuality into nature rather than reading nature's own sexuality out of it (or rather, out of her)? Did it ever occur to you that it just might be the other way round, that human sexuality is derived from cosmic sexuality rather than vice versa, that we are a local application of a universal principle? If not, please seriously consider the idea now, for it is one of the oldest and most widely held ideas in our history, and one of the happiest.

It is a happy idea because it puts humanity into a more human universe.

We fit; we are not freaks. What we are, everything else also is, though in different ways and different degrees. We are, to use the medieval image, a microcosm, a little cosmos; the universe is the macrocosm, the same pattern written large. We are more like little fish inside bigger fish than like sardines in a can. It is the machine-universe that is our projection, not the human universe.

We do not have time here to apply this idea, so pregnant with consequences, to other aspects of our being, to talk about the cosmic extension of consciousness and volition, but many philosophers have argued for this conclusion, and a deeper eye than reason's seems to insist on it. But we can apply it to sexuality here. It means that sexuality goes all the way up and all the way down the cosmic ladder.

At the "down" end there is "love among the particles": gravitational and electromagnetic attraction. That little electron just "knows" the difference between the proton, which she "loves", and another electron, which is her rival. If she did not know the difference, she would not behave so knowingly, orbiting around her proton and repelling other electrons, never vice versa.

But, you say, I thought that was because of the balanced resultant of the two merely physical forces of angular momentum, which tends to zoom her straight out of orbit, and bipolar electromagnetic attraction, which tends to zap her down into her proton: too much zoom for a zap and too much zap for a zoom. Quite right. But what right do you have to call physical forces "mere"? And how do you account for the second of those two forces? Why is there attraction between positive and negative charges? It is exactly as mysterious as love. In fact, it is love. The scientist can tell you how it works, but only the lover knows why.

Sex at the Top

Sex "goes all the way up" as well as "all the way down Spirit is no less sexual than matter; on the contrary, all qualities and all contrasts are richer, sharper, more real as we rise closer and closer to the archetype of realness, God. The God of the Bible is not a monistic pudding in which differences are reduced to lumps, or a light that out-dazzles all finite lights and colors. God is a sexual being, the most sexual of all beings.

This sounds shocking to people only if they see sex only as physical and not spiritual, or if they are Unitarians rather than Trinitarians. The love relationship between the Father and the Son within the Trinity, the relationship from which the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds, is a sexual relationship. It is like the human sexual relationship from which a child proceeds in time; or rather, that relationship is like the divine one.

Sexuality is "the image of God" according to Scripture (see Genesis 1:27), and for B to be an image of A, A must in some way have all the qualities imaged by B. God therefor& is a sexual being. There is therefore sex in Heaven because in Heaven we are close to the source of all sex. As we climb Jacob's ladder the angels look less like neutered, greeting-card cherubs and more like Mars and Venus.

Another reason we are more, not less, sexual in Heaven is that all earthly perversions of true sexuality are overcome, especially the master perversion, selfishness. To make self God, to desire selfish pleasure as the summum bonum, is not only to miss God but to miss pleasure and self as well, and to miss the glory and joy of sex. Jesus did not merely say, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God", but also added that "all these things shall be added" when we put first things first. Each story fits better when the foundation is put first.

C. S. Lewis calls this the principle of "first and second things". In any area of life, putting second things first loses not only the first things but also the second things, and putting first things first gains not only the first things but the second. things as well. So to treat sexual pleasure as God is to miss not only God but sexual pleasure too.

The highest pleasure always comes in self-forgetfulness. Self always spoils its own pleasure. Pleasure is like light; if you grab at it, you miss it; if you try to bottle it, you get only darkness; if you let it pass, you catch the glory. The self has a built-in, God-imaging design of self-fulfillment by self-forgetfulness, pleasure through unselfishness, ecstasy by ekstasis, "standing-outside-the-self". This is not the self-conscious self-sacrifice of the do-gooder but the spontaneous, unconscious generosity of the lover.
This principle, that the greatest pleasure is self-giving, is graphically illustrated by sexual intercourse and by the very structure of the sexual organs, which must give themselves to each other in order to be fulfilled.

In Heaven, when egotistic perversions are totally eliminated, all pleasure is increased, including sexual pleasure. Whether this includes physical sexual pleasure or not, remains to be seen.

Application of the Principles: Sex in Heaven

In the most important and obvious sense there is certainly sex in Heaven simply because there are human beings in Heaven. As we have seen, sexuality, like race and unlike clothes, is an essential aspect of our identity, spiritual as well as physical. Even if sex were not spiritual, there would be sex in Heaven because of the resurrection of the body. The body is not a mistake to be unmade or a prison cell to be freed from, but a divine work of arto designed to show forth the soul as the soul is to show forth God, in splendor and glory and overflow of generous superfluity.

But is there sexual intercourse in Heaven? If we have bodily sex organs, what do we use them for there?

Not baby-making. Earth is the breeding colony; Heaven is the homeland.

Not marriage. Christ's words to the Sadducees are quite clear about that.

It is in regard to marriage that we are "like the angels". (Note that it is not said that we are like the angels in any other ways, such as lacking physical bodies.)

Might there be another function in which baby-making and marriage are swallowed up and transformed, aufgehoben? Everything on earth is analogous to something in Heaven. Heaven neither simply removes nor simply continues earthly things. If we apply this principle to sexual intercourse, we get the conclusion that intercourse on earth is a shadow or symbol of intercourse in Heaven. Could we speculate about what that could be?

It could certainly be spiritual intercourse—and, remember, that includes sexual intercourse because sex is spiritual. This spiritual intercourse would mean something more specific than universal charity. It would be special communion with the sexually complementary; something a man can have only with a woman and a woman only with a man. We are made complete by such union: "It is not good that the man should be alone." And God does not simply rip up His design for human fulfillment. The relationship need not be confined to one in Heaven. Monogamy is for earth. On earth, our bodies are private. In Heaven, we share each other's secrets without shame, and voluntarily. In the Communion of Saints, promiscuity of spirit is a virtue.

The relationship may not extend to all persons of the opposite sex, at least not in the same way or degree. Ifit did extend to all, it would treat each differently simply because each is different—sexually as well as in other ways. I think there must be some special "kindred souls" in Heaven that we are designed to feel a special sexual love for. That would be the Heavenly solution to the earthly riddle of why in the world John falls for Mary, of all people, and not for Jane, and why romantic lovers feel their love is fated, "in the stars", "made in Heaven".

But this would differ from romantic love on earth in that it would be free, not driven; from soul to body, not from body to soul. Nor would it feel apart from or opposed to the God-relationship, but a part of it or a consequence of it: His design, the wave of His baton. It would also be totally unselfconscious and unselfish: the ethical goodness of agape joined to the passion of eros; agape without external, abstract law and duty, and eros without selfishness or animal drives.

But would it ever take the form of physical sexual intercourse? We should explore this question, not to kowtow to modernity's sexual monomania but because it is an honest question about something of great significance to us now, and because we simply want to know all we can about Heaven. Since there are bodies in Heaven, able to eat and be touched, like Christ's resurrection body, there is the possibility of physical intercourse. But why might the possibility be actualized? What are its possible purposes and meanings?

We know Heaven by earthly clues. Let us try to read all the clues in earthly intercourse. It has three levels of meaning: the subhuman, or animal; the superhuman, or divine; and the specifically human. (All three levels exist in us humans.)

Animal reasons for intercourse include (i) the conscious drive for pleasure and (2) the unconscious drive to perpetuate the species. Both would be absent in Heaven. For although there are unimaginably great pleasures in Heaven, we are not driven by them. And the species is complete in eternity: no need for breeding.

Transhuman reasons for intercourse include (i) idolatrous love of the beloved as a substitute for God and (2) the Dante-Beatrice love of the beloved as an image of God. As to the first, there is, of course, no idolatry in Heaven. No substitutes for God are even tempting when God Himself is present. As to the second, the earthly beloved was a window to God, a mirror reflecting the divine beauty. That is why the lover was so smitten. Now that the reality is present, why stare at the mirror? The impulse to adore has found its perfect object. Furthermore, even on earth this love leads not to intercourse but to infatuation. Dante neither desired nor enacted intercourse with Beatrice.

Specifically human reasons for intercourse include (1) consummating a monogamous marriage and (2) the desire to express personal love. As to the first, there is no marriage in Heaven. But what of the second?

I think there will probably be millions of more adequate ways to express love than the clumsy ecstasy of fitting two bodies together like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Even the most satisfying earthly intercourse between spouses cannot perfectly express all their love. If the possibility of intercourse in Heaven is not actualized, it is only for the same reason earthly lovers do not eat candy during intercourse: there is something much better to do. The question of intercourse in Heaven is like the child's question whether you can eat candy during intercourse: a funny question only from the adult's point of view. Candy is one of children's greatest pleasures; how can they conceive a pleasure so intense that it renders candy irrelevant? Only if you know both can you compare two things, and all those who have tasted both the delights of physical intercourse with the earthly beloved and the delights of spiritual intercourse with God testify that there is simply no comparison.

A Heavenly Reading of the Earthly Riddle of Sex

This spiritual intercourse with God is the ecstasy hinted at in all earthly intercourse, physical or spiritual. It is the ultimate reason why sexual passion is so strong, so different from other passions, so heavy with suggestions of profound meanings that just elude our grasp. No mere practical needs account for it. No mere animal drive explains it. No animal falls in love, writes profound romantic poetry, or sees sex as a symbol of the ultimate meaning of life because no animal is made in the image of God. Human sexuality is that image, and human sexuality is a foretaste of that self-giving, that losing and finding the self, that oneness-in-manyness that is the heart of the life and joy of the Trinity. That is what we long for; that is why we tremble to stand outside ourselves in the other, to give our whole selves, body and soul: because we are images of God the sexual being. We love the other sex because God loves God.

And this earthly love is so passionate because Heaven is full of passion, of energy and dynamism. We correctly deny that God has passions in the passive sense, being moved, driven, or conditioned by them, as we are. But to think of the love that made the worlds, the love that became human, suffered alienation from itself and died to save us rebels, the love that gleams through the fanatic joy of Jesus' obedience to the will of His Father and that shines in the eyes and lives of the saints—to think of this love as any less passionate than our temporary and conditioned passions "is a most disastrous fantasy". And that consuming fire of love is our destined Husband, according to His own promise. Sex in Heaven? Indeed, and no pale, abstract, merely mental shadow of it either. Earthly sex is the shadow, and our lives are a process of thickening so that we can share in the substance, becoming Heavenly fire so that we can endure and rejoice in the Heavenly fire.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/sex-in-heaven.htm
post edited by Sophie - 2007/08/17 04:27:34
Guest
Super Member
  • Total Posts : 14706
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 2014/02/20 19:01:46
  • Status: online
RE: Peter Kreeft 2007/08/17 04:30:06 (permalink)
“This spiritual intercourse with God is the ecstasy hinted at in all earthly intercourse, physical or spiritual. It is the ultimate reason why sexual passion is so strong, so different from other passions, so heavy with suggestions of profound meanings that just elude our grasp. “ --- Peter Kreeft
 
If I understand him correctly, it seems that Peter Kreeft expects to have spiritual intercourse with a masculine God in heaven. Also he makes heaven sound like one big spiritual orgy.
 
This is not exactly my idea of heaven. I always hoped that someday I would meet God and hear the words   --welcome home my beloved daughter --  not   -- let’s have spiritual sex.
Page: << < ..3132333435 > Showing page 32 of 35 - Powered by APG vNext Trial
Guest
Quick Reply: (Open Full Version)
  Enter the random characters shown
Submit Post
Jump to:
© 2020 APG vNext Trial Version 4.6

This website is maintained by the Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research.

Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research

Visitors to www.womenpriests.org since 11 January 2014

Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research